. . .. .. . ... ::. ~ ;.; ':.~ t J~~: ".

4-J
!\t :.. 1 , "~ ....r;.~,. 0"1C.:

i ~; :r;~~~~rrrm,
:1 1 1fl J'iI
I: ti~-:e7"~-~ri1,

l\epubhc of tbe ~bilipptneg . ..'.----

v
' ~ .....;J

~-----
'-=-~~
- .~
- -
~~upretnt ltourt
f.l1' '1
J'tltllttha

FIRST DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 212818

PlaintiffAppellee,

Present:

SEREN0 C.J, Chairperson,

1

-versus - LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,

DEL CAS11LLO,
PERLAS-BERNABE, and
CAGUIOA, JJ.

~ANu~aSedZ011
GREGORIO QUITA alias "GREG",
Accused-Appellant.
x----------------~-----------------------------~~~~--x
i,,J ~

RE,~O LU TI 0 N

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

1
This is an appeal from the January 10, 2014 Decision of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04782, the dispositive portion of which
reads:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appeal is hereby DENIED

for lack of merit. The Decision dated December 1, 2010 rendered by the
Regional Trial Court of Parafiaque City, Br-..mch 195, in Criminal Case No. 06-
0294 is hereby MODIFIED, increasing the amount of civil indemnity ex delicto
to P75,000.00, moral damages to P50,000.00 and exemplary damages to
Jl30,000.00.

SO ORDERED.2 ~#1

CA rollo, pp. 92-103; pcnn~d by Associate Justice Ramo11 A. Cruz and concuned in by Associate Justices
Hakim S. Abdltlwahki and Romeo F. Bart:a.
Id. at l 0 I.
Resolution 2 G,R. No. 212818

Factual Antecedents

The two accused in this case, Greg01io Quita, alias Greg (Gregorio), and
Fleno Quita, alias Eddie Boy (Fleno), were indicted for Murder before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Parafiaque City, in an Information which alleged:

That on or about the 17th day of Novemberr,1 2002, in the City of

Parafiaque, Philippines, and within the jmisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, armed with bladed weapon, conspiring and confoderating
together and both of them mutually helping and aiding one another, and with
treachery and abuse of superior strength, did then and there v\rillfully, unlawfully
and foloruously attack, assault and stab one ROBERTO SOLAYAO, thereby
inflicting upon the latter mon:al woimds which directly caused his death.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 3

As these accused were not promptly apprehended when the foregoing

Information was filed, this case was ordered archived by the RTC. But on January
8, 2007, Gregorio was arrested, hence the case was revived on the said date.

On January 17, 2007, Gregorio, assisted by counsel, was anaigned and

5
entered a negative plea to the charge against him.4 Pre-trial was held, after which
trial on the merits followed.

Version ofthe P.rosecution

The case for the prosecution is built upon the testimonies of Paquito
Solayao (Paquito) and Dr. Edgardo Vida (Dr. Vida).

Paquito testified that the deceased victim in this case, Roberto Solayao
(Roberto), was his eldest son. He claimed that he had known Gregorio and Fleno
for about a year prior to the killing of Roberto, because these two were the ones
who delivered water in their locality; that on November 17, 2002 at around 8:30 in
the evening he was at home at Greenland Street, Better Living Subdivision,
Parafiaque City having just arrived from work, when his daughter told him that
Roberto was having a dri.nking session nearby; that while on his way to fetch
Roberto, he saw three persons fighting; that when he went near the trio he saw
Gregorio holding Roberto's hand at the back while Roberto was being stabbed by
Fleno; that when he shouted his son's assailant') took to their heels; and that he ran
9

afrer them, but when the two reached a dark alley he no longer pursued them. He
t~en went back to where__ ~oberto was lying, and with the help of his neighb~~
3
Records, p. 1.
Id. at 55.
Id. nt 76.
Resolution 3 G.R. No. 212818

brought the stricken Roberto to the hospital. But when they arrived at the hospital
the doctor told him that Roberto was already dead. He spent about P40,000.00 for
Roberto's funeral and burial expenses, but only the expenses amounting to
P25,000.00 were covered by receipts. Paquito claimed that Roberto's death was
very painful to him.

Dr. Vida, former NBI6 Medico-Legal Officer, testified that he was the one
who conducted an autopsy on Roberto's cadaver. His findings were embodied in
the Autopsy Report,7 wherein he affirmed that the victim sustained six contused
abrasions, three incised wounds, and six stab wounds. According to this witness,
the most fatal wound, labeled Wound No. 1, was the one inflicted at the
deceased's right shoulder (or deltoid area) which penetrated the large vessels of
the axillary artery. Without this Wound No. 1, the victim might have survived as
the other wounds were only superficial. Dr. Vida opined that the wounds inflicted
on the deceased could have been inflicted by one and the same weapon, possibly a
double-bladed instrument.

Version ofthe Defense

The defense presented Gregorio and his wife Analyn Quita (Analyn).

Gregorio made a total denial of the charge against him. He denied that he
had ever known the victim or met him even once. He claimed that prior to the
incident in question he was residing at No. 10 SMI Compound, Sucat, Kupang,
Muntinlupa City; that he used to work as a truck driver for Leslie Corporation but
that on the date of the incident, November 17, 2002, he was no longer employed
with Leslie, and was looking for a job; that it was only in December 2002 that he
was able to find a job as a driver for a trucking company, the name of which he
could no longer remember; that he worked for this trucking company until 2004;
that his job was to deliver cup noodles in Metro Manila and in the provinces; that
he was assisted in this job by a "pahinante" named Danilo; that on the date of the
incident, he left their house at 10:30 in the morning and together with his brother,
Fleno, went to Better Living Subdivision in Parafiaque City where their
"kababayans" Gerry Virtudazo (Geny) and Jose Virtudazo (Jose) were working
as water delive1y boys; and, that when they got to that subdivision, Gerry and Jose
invited them to a birthday celebration. He heard that the birthday celebrant was
the child of the owner of the house where the celebration was taking place. But he
was not introduced, either to the birthday celebrant, or to the owner of the house.
After they had eaten and had partaken of liquor, they sang songs inside the house
of the birthday celebrant. While they were singing, four men, not one of whom he
knew, arrived. One of these four, he later heard, was named "Berto". After these
four had finished eating, they went outside the house. At this point, the owner~~
6
National Bureau oflnvestigation.
7
Exhibit "D," records, p. 240.
Resolution 4 G.R. No. 212818

the house told his group that this "Berto" was angry with them. To avoid trouble,
he and his companions decided to leave the place of celebration at around 4 p.m.
Not far away from the celebrant's house, however, he and his companions saw
"Berto's" group waiting for them along the road. A fight erupted, and someone
gave him a blow at the right side of his face. Fortunately, the residents of the place
were able to pacify the protagonists. He and his companions then left the place on
board a tricycle. He reached his house at Sucat, Kupang, Muntinlupa City
between 6:30 to 7 p.m. and told his wife about the incident that happened that day;
his wife advised him not to go to that place anymore. In 2004 he transferred his
family to Paliparan 3, Dasmarifias City in Cavite, where his parents had a piece of
land. Here, he found work as a tricycle driver. Sometime in the early part of
January 2007, while driving his tricycle, someone told him to go to Parafiaque
City because a warrant for his arrest was waiting for him there. He went with that
person to Parafiaque City because he knew he did not commit any crime. But
when he got there, he was at once brought to the Special Investigation Division at
the Parafiaque Coastal Area, where he was told to sign a blank piece of paper,
which, according to the person who brought him there, meant that he had killed
somebody from the Better Living Subdivision in Parafiaque City. After signing
the blank piece of paper he was detained in jail and was told that ifhe believed he
was innocent of the accusation against him, he should prove his innocence in
court. He said that he was never brought to the prosecutor's office in Parafiaque
City. He insisted that there was never a time that he left Kupang, Muntinlupa City
from November 17, 2002 up to the time he transferred to Dasmarifias City in
Cavite in 2004. He claimed that at the time of the incident, the other accused, his
brother Fleno, was residing at Bicutan in Taguig City, and that Fleno left Bicutan
only in 2003.

Analyn corroborated her husband's testimony in its entirety.

Ruling ofthe Regional Trial Court

The RTC sustained the factuality of the treacherous killing of Roberto,

labeling it as murder, viz.:

The fact of death of the victim was duly established by his death
certificate (exhibit "C"). Accused Gregorio was one of those who killed the
victim. The killing was qualified by treachery. Obviously, the killing was neither
parricide nor infanticide.

This Court finds Paquito Solayao's eyewitness account of the incident

worthy of belief His positive, straightforward, categorical[,] and unequivocal
testimony that accused Gregorio held both hands of the victim at the back while
being stabbed by his co-accused Fleno who is his brother, deserves full credence.
It is worthy of note that Paquito was not shown to have been impelled by ill
motive to testify falsely against both accused and indict them for a crime ~~

Branch 195, Parai'iaque City, penned by Aida Estrella Macapagal.

 Resolution 5 G.R. No. 212818

serious as murder. All that was shown was his ardent desire to give justice to his
murdered son. When there is no showing of any improper motive on the part of
the prosecution witnesses to testify falsely against the accused, the logical
conclusion is that no such improper motive exists and that their positive and
categorical testimonies and declarations on the witness stand under the solemnity
of an oath are worthy of full faith and credence (Buenaventura vs. People, 493
SCRA 223; People vs. Cabbab, Jr., 527 SCRA 589). In the instant case, absent
any evidence of improper motive on Paquito's part to testify as principal witness,
his testimony deserves credit (Nerpito vs. People, 528 SCRA 93).

Paquito's testimony that both hands of the victim were held at the back
by accused Gregorio wJ-.Jle being stabbed by accused Fleno shows the presence
of treachery because under such situation the victim was deprived of any real
chance to fight back and defend himself In the cases of People vs. Pascual, 512
SCRA and People vs. Concepcion, 514 SCRA 660[,J the Supreme Court held
that treachery is present when the offender commits any crime against persons
employing means, methods, or fonn in the execution thereof which tend directly
and especially to insure its execution without risk to the offender arising from any
defense which the offended party might make. In the instant case, holding the
hands of the victim while being stabbed was the means employed by the accused
to insure that the former could not fight back and defend himself.

The defense of denial interposed by accused Gregorio, on the other hand,

cannot prevail over Paquito's positive, direct[,] and categorical declarations made
in a straightforward manner while in the witness stand that he held both hands of
the victim while being stabbed by his brother, accused Fleno. It mm.1 be noted
that aside from his selfl-]serving testimony that on the date in question, he just
stayed home after coming from Better Living, Parafiaque City where he attended
a birthday party and that when they left the house of the birthday celebrant, the
group of Berto waited for them on the road and that when they passed in front of
them he was allegedly p1mched by one of Berto' s companions, no other clear and
convincing evidence was presented to substantiate the same. His "kababayans'',
Jose and Geny Vertudaso, were not even presented to establish at least the fact
that he indeed was with them from 10:30 in the morning up to 4:00 in the
afternoon of November 17, 2002. Neither was his testimony that he was
employed as a truck driver with Leslie Corporation prior to the date in question
nor that he was employed as delive1y boy (driver) of a certain company from
December 2002 up to 2004 was duly established. His alleged pahinante, Danilo,
was not presented to corroborate such testimony. Even the tricycle driver, who[,]
according to his wife Analyn, was the one who informed her that he was arrested
while driving his tricycle in Dasmarifias, Cavitc, was not presented to corroborate
this testimony.

The Supreme Court, in a long line of cases, ruled that evidence[,] to be

believed[,] must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but x x x
must [also] be credible in itselfI,] such as the common experience and
observation of mankind can approve as probable wider the circumstances.
Unfortunately, the evidence presented by the accused did not pass this test. 9

Upon these facts, the RTC disposed as follows.:~~

-------
9
Records, pp. 335-336.
Resolution 6 G.R. No. 212818

WHEREFORE, this Court finds accused Gregorio Quita, GUTLTY

BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the crime of murder and hereby
sentences him to suffer the penalty of reclm;ion perpetua which carries with it the
accessory penalties of civil interdiction for life and that of perpetual absolute
disqualification which he shall suffer even though pardoned unless the same shall
have been expressly remitted therein.

Accused Gregorio Qui ta is likewise ordered to pay the heirs of the victim
the ammmts of Fifteen Thousand Pesos (P.15,000.00) as actual damages; Fifty
'Thousand Pesos (PS0,000.00) as civil indemnity ex dclicto; Forty TI1ousand
Pesos ~0,000.00) as moral damages; and Twenty Thousand Pesos
(P20,000.00) as exemplary damages.

The City Jail Warden of Para..f1aque City is hereby ordered to transfer

said accused to the National Penitentiary in Muntinlupa City, immediately upon
receipt of this Decision.

As regards accused Fleno Quita, 1his case shall remain in archive. The
alias warrant of arrest issued against him stays.

SO ORDERED. 10

Ruling of the Court <ifAppeals

From this judgment, Gregorio interposed an appeal to the CA anchored on

a single assigmrn.~nt of etTor to \\~t:

THE TRIAL COURT GR/\ VEL Y ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-

APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE
PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO ESTABLISH HIS GUILT BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT. 11

But the CA predictably sustained the RTC's factual underpinnings of the

case, thus:

Paquito Solayao, the victim's father who was an eyewitness to the

incident, positively identified Accused-Appellant Gregorio Quita to be the person
who held the hands of the victim while the other accused Fleno Quita stabbed the
victim. He knew the two accused because they were water delivery boys in the
water station tl1ree streets away from their place. He saw the accused in the water
delivery siation one month before and also one week before tlie incident
happened (on] November 17, 2002. The faces of the accused had become
ffil!'iliar to the witness that it is believable for him to recognize them when he
saw them ganging up on his son that fateful night. The incident happened in the
middle of the street in front of a lamp post so that the witness, who was but five
(5) meters away, clearly saw Gregorio Quitl holding both the hands of his son,
_ _ _w_h~ w~s s~~ggling, at the back while F!eno Quita ~i:abbed his son. ~CJA_
10 Id. at 336-337 / L/ -
1
1 CA rollo, p. 47.
Resolution 7 G.R. No. 212818

The positive identification of an accused where categorical and

consistent, without any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness
testifying, should prevail over the alibi and denial of appellant whose testimony
was not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence.

Accused~appellant failed to show any ill motive on the part of the

eyewitness to falsely accuse him of the crime. He tried to discredit the
eyewitness's testimony because he was the victim's father but the same would
not hold.

By and large, relationship by itself does not give rise to a presumption of

bias or ulterior motive, nor does it ipso facto diminish the credibility or tarnish
the testimony of a witness. On the contrary, a witness' relationship to a victim of
a crime would even make J1is or her testimony more credible as it would be
unnatural for a relative who is interested in vindicating the crime to accuse
somebody other than the culprit. The natural interest of witnesses, who are
relatives of the victim, in securing the conviction of the guilty would actually
deter them from implicating persons other than the true culprits.

Fun:hem1ore, Paquito Solayao's eyewitness account of the incident was

steadfast and unequivocal, viz.:

xxx

Pros. Robles
Q Now, what happened Mr. Witness when you left your house
and immediately proct--eded to fetch your son Roberto?

Witness
A When I went out of my house and I was in the middle of the
street of Annex 40, I saw three (3) persons having a fight,
ma'am.

Q When you saw these three persons having a fight, Mr.

Witness, how far were you from them?
A More or less ten (10) meters, ma'am.

Q What did you do, Mr. Witness, upon seeing that there are three
persons along Annex 40 who are having a fight?
A I walked faster to know who they were.

Q What happened next after that, Mr. Witness?

A I saw Gregorio Quita holding the hand of my son while being
stabbed by the other accused Fleno Quita alias Eddie Boy.

Q And at the time, Mr. Witness, that you saw the incident, how
far were you from them?
A More or less five (5) meters, ma'am.

xxx

Q Are you sure, Mr. Witness, at that time that it was the two
accused who stabbed and held the hand of your son?
A Yes, ma'am.

Q And what made you so sure of that, Mr. Witness?

A Because in that area the two accused deliver water in Annex M ~
22 and in Annex 40. /
Resolution 8 G.R. No. 212818

xxx

His positive, straightforward[,l and unequivocal manner of

recounting what he witnessed on the date of the incident led the trial court
to find his testimony to be worthy of belief. The rule is that findings of the
trial court on the credibility of witnesses deserve great weight, given the
clear advantage of a trial judge in the appreciation of testimonial evidence.
The trial court is in the best position to assess the credibility of witnesses
because of [its] unique opportunity to observe the witnesses first hand and
to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grueling examination.
These are sib'llificant factors in evaluating the sincerity of witnesses in the
process of unearthing the truth. Thus, except for compelling reasons, We
are doctrinally bound by the trial court's assessment of the credibility of
witnesses.

The testimony of the witness that the assailant was in front of the
victim when he was stabbed was corroborated by the testimony of the
medico-legal officer who conducted the autopsy on the victim that since the
wounds were located anteriorly, it is possible for the assailant to inflict the
fatal wound in front of the victim, although he did not discount the fact that
the assailant could be at the back of the victim holding [his] body x x x.

And, because of the positive identification of the accused-appellant,

his alibi deserved scant consideration. For alibi to prosper, it is not enough for
the accused to prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed.
He must likewise prove that he could not have been physically present at the
scene of the crime or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission.

Accused-appellant recounted that on the date of the incident, he attended

a birthday party in Annex 22, Better Living, Parafiaque City, which is where the
victim also had a drinking spree. While he clain1cd that he arrived home in Sucat,
Muntinlupa at around 6:30 to 7:00 in the evening, it does not discount the
possibility that he was at the scene of the crime in Better Living, Parafiaque City
at around 8:30 in the evening of the same day, especially so when he narrated in
his testimony an account of an altercation with a group led by a certain "Berto"
which happened in the street near Annex 22 where the birthday party was held.

With respect to the alleged delay in indicting accused-appellant, Paquito

Solayao explained that he filed a complaint in 2002 against the siblings Gregorio
Quita and Fleno Quita but when he learned that the accused escaped, he did not
pursue the case anymore. When he learned later on that the suspects were already
in Manila, he dedded tei pursue 'd1e case again by giving a statement on Januaiy
23, 2006.

The Infom1ation charged accused-appeUan~ in conspiracy with Fleno

Quita, with the crime of Murder. qualified by treachery and abuse of superior
strength.

The elements of murder that the prosecution rnust establish are (1) that a
person was killed; (2) tliat d1e accused killed him; (3) that the killing was
attended by any of the qualif)ring circumstances m~ntioned in Article 248 of the
Revised Penal Code (RPC); and (4) that tl1e killing is not pmiicide or infantici5# #
 Resolution 9 G.R. No. 212818

The fact of death was duly established by the death certificate of the
victim Roberto Solayao as well as the autopsy report prepared by Dr.
Edgardo Vida indicating that the fatal stab wound inflicted on the victim's
right shoulder caused his death.

There is treachery when 'the offender commits any of the crimes

against persons, employing means, methods, or forms 01 the execution,
which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the
offender arising from the defense which the oftended party might make.'
These means or methods are made in the form of a swift, deliberate and
unexpected attack, without any warning and affording the victim, which is
usually unam1ed and unsuspecting, no chance at all to resist or escape the
impending attack.

Holding the hands of the victim to his back while he was being
stabbed re~dered hint defenseless against the perpetrators thereby insuring
the execution of the crin1e without risk to the offenders of any defense that
the victim might make.

The Information likewise alleged conspiracy between Gregorio Quita

and Flcno Quita in comnuttin.g the crime. There is ~onspiracy when two or more
persons come to an agreenwnt concerning U1e commission of a felony and decide
to commit it. Actions indicatirig close personal associati911 and shared sentiment
among the accused can prove its presence. Proof that the pel)Jetrators met
beforehand and decided to commit the crime is not necessary as long as their acts
manifest a common design and oneness of purpose.

Although Paqt1ito Solayao testified that it was Fleno Quita whom he saw
stab the victim, the act of Gregorio Quita in holding the hands of the victim whlle
he was being stabbed by Fleno Quita sh0wed a common design and oneness of
purpose to inflict ham1 upon the victim. Hence, the basic principle of conspiracy
that 'the act of one is the act of all' applies in this case.

By reason of the foregoing, the prosecution has sufficiently

established, beyond reasonable doubt, accused-appellant's culf:ability. His
2
conviction of the crime of murder, therefore, must be upheld. (Emphasis
supplied)

But the CA :modified Gn~gorio's civil liability to reflect the recent

jurisprudential teaching. 111y CA thereafter disposed as follows:

WHEREFORE, in view of th~ foregoing, the appeal is hereby DENIED

for lack of merit. 111~ Decision dated December 1, 2010 rendered by the
Regional Trial Coutt of Parafiaque City, Branch 195, in Criminal Case No. 06-
0:?.94 is hereby MODIFIED, inr:.remilng tlie amount of civU indemnity ex delicto
to P.75,000.00, moral damages to P.50,000.00 and ex:t~nplary damages to
;J0,000.00.

SOORDERE~/~
12
Id.at97-101.
13
Id. at 10 I.
 Resolution IO G.R. No. 212818

In a Resolution 14 dated July 28, 2014, both parties were required to

simultaneously file their respective supplemental briefs. However, both filed
15
Manifestations stating that the filing of a supplemental brief is no longer
necessary because they have already exhaustively discussed all issues.

Our Ruling

Gregorio's appeal before this Court is predicated essentially upon the self-
same lone assignment of error set forth in his Brief with the CA. Since the factual
findings by the CA are binding upon this Comt, especially when the CA's findings
unite with the RTC's factual findings, as in this case, this Court is not at liberty to
reject or disturb the factual findings of both lower courts. Indeed, this Court is
satisfied that the factual fmdings of both lower courts are in accord with the
evidence on record. However, with reforence to the civil liability, the same must
be modified to conform strictly to the teachings of recent jurisprudence. Thus, the
award of Pl5,000.00 as actual damages is deleted and in lieu thereof, temperate
damages in the amount of ~50,000.00 is awarded; the awards of moral damages
and exemplary damages are increased to P75,000.00 each; and the award of
P75,000.00 as civil indenmity is maintained. Finally, all damages shall earn
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this judgment until
fully paid. 16

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit The

January 10, 2014 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04782
finding appellant Gregorio Quita alias '"Greg" guilty of murder and sentencing
him to suffer the penalty of reclusion pe1petua is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATIONS that he is ordered to pay the heirs of Roberto Solayao
P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, P75,000.00 as
exemplary damages, and P50,000.00 as temperate damages, all with legal interest
of 6% per annum from date of finality of this Resolution until full payment.

SO ORDERED.

..
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
Associate Justice

14
Rollo, pp. 19-20.
15
Id.at21-33.
16
See People v. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202i24, Apri! 5, 2016.
Resolution 11 G.R. No. 212818

WE CONCUR:

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

ChiefJustice
Chairperson

~J~0-4E~O ESTELA~~BERNABE
Associate Justice . Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Atticle VIII of the Constitution, I ce1tify that the
conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the CourC s Division.

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

ChkfJustice

~cftt'.